Zip merging is more efficient for reducing backups:

https://itre.ncsu.edu/itre-studying-how-zipper-merges-reduce...

ICM on a Saturday and Connections Museum on a Sunday is a delightful pairing! Close to the airport too if your just popping by on a layover, though plan on 2 to 4 hours for each

IBM spun out their foundries to Global Foundaries (formerly part of AMD) a decade ago, then refused to commit to Global Foundaries next major process upgrades.

Staying on the bleeding edge of silicon requires massive investment, which they weren't willing to make.

https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-01-02-GlobalFoundries-and-IBM-...

OP seems to want to route /64 or larger to each customer, but can only have 3000 total entries larger than /128 in the expensive routers his firm owns.

Essentially the hardware doesn't support scaling a /64 or /56 to each customer, leaving OP in a terrible position when it comes to proper IPv6 deployment.

When you look at Ziply Fiber, they seem to be ripping out these types of Enterprise grade routers left and right in favor of a simple Linux box doing routing. I think a large portion of why they're doing this is due to limitations like what OP is experiencing

Never mind the actual performance issues that I keep seeing in production deployments.

We have large networks that are essentially rolling on autopilot totally unmanaged, like Lumen'e recently sold Quantum Fiber asset that is now owned by AT&T holding company Forged Fiber 37 LLC

No native IPv6 still on this forgotten about network, 6RD keeps having weird routability issues, but if you just disable IPv6 everything works fine.

Not really, I always have to choose an exit node for Tailscale to allow me internet access on Mac while connected to a Tailnet on cellular.

PCMU and PCMA voice frames are 20ms or 40ms, and no one is running with no jitter buffer, so your 30ms number doesn't make sense.

Even circuit switched networks are not often below 30ms, to hit that you'd need to make a local phone call on a fully analog circuit.

Standards such as G.711 and co don't "enforce" a latency because they can't. Latency is a property of the network, not the traffic.

You cannot use terms such as "PCMU and PCMA voice frames are 20ms or 40ms" because that makes no sense whatsoever. PCMU and PCMA are protocols that traverse a network - they do not define it.

I'm old enough to have used circuit switched telephony for some years and perhaps you are too. I recall it as being largely latency free, in that a call never sounded weird unless a satellite was involved, in which case the call costs were horrific and you ended up doing a sort of informal form of radio protocol to talk, which generally ended up in a rather scrambled mess of a conversation.

I can remember amassing a stack of 20 10p coins and calling my mum from the UK to West Germany in the '80s and having to feed the coins faster than I could talk. I sent an aerogram later.

Scaleway is a huge abuse platform, the same IPs on their network continue day after day to blast out login and bruteforce attempts. Drop their ranges and suddenly your logs get a lot quieter with no user facing impacts.

Thank you for being honest and up front about your background. It is very meaningful that you do not try to hide it, and I feel it increases trust.

VoIP.ms is hard to port into and out of, I've repeatedly seen them drop part of the account number when transferring a number, then drag their feet for days thereafter on resubmitting the port.

Always ask for the Port Order Number (PON) so you can follow up with the other carrier to see what they received from VoIP.ms

I've only done it a few times in each direction, but I've never had an issue porting in or out of VOIP.ms, and it seemed easy enough to me.

That's frustrating, but why are you so concerned with porting out of VoIP-based carriers?